🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief short communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said recently, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will view this one as the ultimate chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote he.

For a person who prizes propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the team is that he resigned, but reading his criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning information in open forums that did not tally with the facts.

He says his words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable charge, indeed. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better days, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers respected him and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with one since having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes